"WE STICK OUR THUMBS UP OUR ASS AND WAIT A MOMENT OR TWO. IF WE DON'T FART, WE'RE INNOCENT. IF WE DO FART, WE'RE STILL INNOCENT. IT'S VERY SCIENTIFIC AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAJORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY PRAISE THE IN DEPTH NATURE."

We noted that, in May of 2008, Hillary Clinton had explained she was
still in the race against Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic Party's
presidential nomination because, in June of 1968, RFK was assassinated.

Yes, Mike and antiscoialista are correct about the hypocrisy of Hillary.

But there's another issue.

She's running to become president.

It's not just that her crony is calling for the assassination of Julian Assange.

She wants to become the head of the US government.

The US government has a legal system.

What the disgusting Beckel apparently didn't learn in rehab was the Constitution.

Did Hillary?

If she wants to become president of the United States, the American
people need to know she will fairly enforce the legal system.

Julian Assange has been found guilty of no crimes by any court of law -- US or international.

It appears that yet again we have the Clinton standard -- where rules are tossed aside.

If that's not the case, if Hillary is committed to the US legal system, she needs to condemn Beckel's remarks.

Maybe she's too busy dealing with her latest 'lost' e-mails that she wishes were lost but are not.

From yesterday's US State Dept press briefing:

QUESTION: And I support you in that effort. The Clinton emails. (Laughter.) Does -QUESTION: Just the subject she wanted to go to. (Laughter.)MS TRUDEAU: Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. I think she was trying to skip out before
this came up. (Laughter.) But all right, so I want to ask you about one
of the emails, and I know you addressed this briefly yesterday. One came
from – that the critics have seized on came from Doug Band of the
Clinton Foundation, asking Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in an email to,
quote – it’s saying, “It’s important to take care of” – and then the
name is redacted, and he is obviously pushing to get this person a job
in the State Department. And then Huma replies, basically, they’re
working on it.Can you tell us why the State Department redacted that name, and whether or not this person wound up getting a job or not?MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I can’t speak to specific case –
cases. I’m also not going to speak to specific redactions. I will note
though, broadly, the department regularly hires political appointees
with a range of skill sets for a broad variety of jobs. It’s not unusual
for candidates to be recommended to the department through a variety of
avenues.QUESTION: The --QUESTION: Hold on, because that answer --QUESTION: Let me just follow up, Matt. Sorry.QUESTION: All right.MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second, and then I’ll get there, Matt.QUESTION: The Clinton campaign is on background saying today
it’s a – it was a young advance staffer, not a donor or a foundation
employee. I guess I just – I need a little help understanding why this
person’s name cannot be shared.MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to specific cases, and I certainly can’t speak to comments from the – from the campaign.QUESTION: Would it be wrong to assume that, then, that this is
a case simply of nepotism or something like that? I mean, what – how
are we then supposed to interpret what --MS TRUDEAU: You – I can’t speak to specific cases, Justin.Matt, did --QUESTION: But it’s the State Department’s decision to redact those names, and nobody else’s decision.MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. And I’m not going to speak to specific redactions nor specific cases.Matt.QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious. Were you answering his question “was this person hired,” without getting into who it was?MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I can’t speak to specific cases or specific --QUESTION: This is pretty – in fact, it’s pretty non-specific since we don’t know what the name is. It’s specific as to --MS TRUDEAU: But you’re asking about a specific hiring action?QUESTION: I’m asking if the person referred – if you know if
the person referred to in this email whose name has been redacted ended
up getting a job here.MS TRUDEAU: I have no information to speak to specific cases.QUESTION: But you just said --QUESTION: But it’s --QUESTION: In your answer to Justin, you said that the State Department hires from all sorts of places.MS TRUDEAU: From all sorts of avenues. We receive recommendations from a variety --QUESTION: But this person wasn’t hired, then?MS TRUDEAU: I have no information --QUESTION: Or was?MS TRUDEAU: -- on that specific case or any specific case.QUESTION: But if the person is not named, then it’s not specific.MS TRUDEAU: I think we’re parsing.QUESTION: I --MS TRUDEAU: More on Clinton emails?QUESTION: No, it’s not really parsing. It’s – I mean, it –
it’s specific to people who are non-career State Department employees
who were hired after this email. That’s the universe. And the question
is: Is this person referred to one of them?MS TRUDEAU: Again, I am unable to speak to specific cases.QUESTION: Well, how then can you disabuse us of the notion that there’s any impropriety here?MS TRUDEAU: Because the department regularly hires political
appointees with a range of skill sets from a broad – for a broad variety
of jobs.QUESTION: But why should we trust that’s – that that’s – why
should we believe that that statement exonerates any – her – the Clinton
– of any impropriety? I mean, we don’t know who it is. How then can we
read that as it’s all good?MS TRUDEAU: I’m just not going to speak anymore to specifics on this.Do we have more on Clinton emails?QUESTION: Yes, we do.MS TRUDEAU: Of course, we do. Do you mind if I go to Abigail first?QUESTION: No.MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Abigail.QUESTION: Do you have any response to criticism by some that
suggest there was a relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the
State Department at the time? There was an email that came out in this
recent set that is between the – an executive at the Clinton Foundation
and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills where he is requesting to set up a
meeting between a billionaire donor and the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon.
Do you have any response to --MS TRUDEAU: So very similar to what I said before, I’m not
going to speak to specific emails. However, I think you guys know State
Department officials are regularly in touch with a wide variety of
outside individuals and organizations, including businesses, nonprofits,
NGOs, think tanks. The nearly 55,000 pages of former Secretary
Clinton’s emails released by the department over the past year give a
sense of the wide range of individuals both inside and outside of
government that State Department officials are in contact with on a
range of subjects.QUESTION: So you don’t feel like this email or you don’t feel
like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton
Foundation and the State Department at the time?MS TRUDEAU: We talk to a wide range of people, at my level, at
various levels in the department – NGOs, think tanks, business leaders,
experts on a variety of subjects.QUESTION: But that’s not her – that’s not her question.QUESTION: Except in this – and importantly, in this case,
Secretary Clinton made a pledge that she would not personally or
substantially in any way involve herself with the Clinton Foundation. So
it’s not just any outside organization. It’s the specific organization
that she said ahead of time she wouldn’t have contact with. So doesn’t
that – doesn’t this, then, seem to violate that pledge?MS TRUDEAU: So again, to reiterate, department officials are
in touch with a wide range of individuals. I’d note that former
Secretary Clinton’s ethics agreement did not preclude other State
Department officials from having contact with Clinton Foundation staff.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Can you at least try to answer Abigail’s question,
which was: Has the department looked into this and determined that there
was no impropriety?MS TRUDEAU: The department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum, Matt.QUESTION: That’s not the question. The question is whether or
not you’ve looked into this – the building has looked into it and
determined that everything was okay, that there was nothing wrong here.MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident in our ability and our past
practice of reaching out to a variety of sources and being responsive to
requests.QUESTION: I’m sorry, are you – am I not speaking English? Is
this – I mean, is it coming across as a foreign – I’m not asking you if –
no one is saying it’s not okay or it’s bad for the department to get a
broad variety of input from different people. Asking – the question is
whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here.MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that all the rules were followed.QUESTION: That’s (inaudible).MS TRUDEAU: Good.QUESTION: Thank you.MS TRUDEAU: Are we – we’re still doing Clinton emails? I’ll come back to you, Abigail. Go ahead, Arshad.QUESTION: So Judicial Watch released 10 additional pages of emails this morning.MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: In one of them, it documents that Secretary
Clinton’s – former Secretary Clinton’s then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills
was advised of a FOIA request in which the Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington had sought, quote, “records sufficient to show
the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary
Rodham Clinton and the extent to which those email accounts are
identifiable … of or associated with Secretary Clinton.” That – the
email that chief of staff – then-chief of staff Mills received was sent
on December the 11th, 2012, and according to the emails released, I
believe she acknowledged it and said thanks in response.So if she was aware, as she was because she was notified of this FOIA
request asking about the different email accounts that were associated
with Secretary Clinton at the time, why did the department subsequently
tell the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that there
were no responsive records?MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: Because she knew, because she – we know for a fact –
emailed with Secretary Clinton on her private account. So – and we also
know that she, as a lawyer, is the person who helped make the
determinations on which of the emails on the private server constituted
federal records and should therefore be turned over to the archives,
many of which have now been made public. So why, if she knew in December
of 2012 that there were requests for clarity on how many accounts
Secretary Clinton had, did the State Department not forthrightly and
honestly answer that request rather than just saying there were no
responsive records?MS TRUDEAU: Okay. A lot there, so I’m going to give you a
fulsome response on that. In 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington, known by the acronym CREW, sent FOIA requests to a
number of agencies seeking information about email use by agency heads.
This FOIA request, as it relates to the State Department, has been
covered extensively in the press and reviewed previously by State’s
inspector general. The documents released today show what the OIG
already reported in January 2016, that former Secretary Clinton’s chief
of staff Cheryl Mills was informed of the request at the time it was
received and subsequently tasked staff to follow up. The OIG report also
found no evidence that S/ES, L, and IPS staff involved in responding to
requests for information, searching for records, or drafting the
response had knowledge of the secretary’s email use. Ms. Mills has
testified about this topic previously; that testimony is publicly
available.I can’t speculate what may or have – may not been known about that
email use. What – but I would note that the January IG report found no
evidence that any senior State Department officials who exchanged emails
with the secretary reviewed the search results or approved the response
to CREW. Nothing in these documents alters the facts as found by the
IG. So it’s in the IG report.QUESTION: I get that it was covered in the IG report. What I
don’t understand, though – I mean, the IG report also concluded that the
response that there were no responsive records was, quote, “inaccurate
and incomplete.” And my question goes to why someone who was aware of
that specific FOIA request, who was aware of the specific request for
information regarding how many emails – email accounts the secretary had
or were associated with her, would not have disclosed to S/ES, L, the
FOIA people, or anybody else the fact of the private server so that
federal records could in fact be made available in response to the FOIA
request.MS TRUDEAU: So I think what you’re asking about is why wasn’t that FOIA request amended.QUESTION: No, I’m not asking that. I’m asking why the person –
a person who was both in a position to know about the FOIA request and
who was well aware and frequently corresponded with former Secretary
Clinton on her private account did not make the existence of that
account available and known to the people whose legal responsibility it
was to respond honestly, accurately, and completely to a FOIA request.
That’s my question, not why wasn’t it amended. Why wasn’t it correctly
responded to in the first place?MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. It’s a good question. I don’t have an answer
for you. As I note, we – the IG found no evidence that any senior
department official reviewed the search results or approved the response
to CREW.QUESTION: What about non-senior people?MS TRUDEAU: I have no process chart, flow chart, on how that
FOIA request was responded to, but it was taken a look at. The IG
reported this in January 2016 and did note that result.QUESTION: Can I also ask back on the hiring?MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I want to Abigail too unless we answered – okay.QUESTION: I mean, essentially that.QUESTION: Go ahead.QUESTION: I was just going to say I guess it just stands out
that it seems like a pretty broad request, so it seems like something
you would flag if the response was no records in response to that. It
seems like something that a FOIA person would note is unusual or that
there might be an issue or a problem there.MS TRUDEAU: Again, I can’t speak to process. I would note that this
was extensively covered, though, in the January 2016 IG report.Go ahead, Nick.QUESTION: But that didn’t ultimately put any blame on Cheryl Mills, did it – that IG report?MS TRUDEAU: I’d refer you to the IG report itself.QUESTION: Because it really looks like she was not speaking up.MS TRUDEAU: I’m – yeah, I’m not going got characterize the IG report. They would speak for themselves.Go ahead, Nick.QUESTION: You mentioned that State receives a lot of
recommendations for candidates and things like that. I mean, what sort
of guidelines do you have in place to make sure that when you act on
those claims, the department or staff in the department are not drifting
into nepotism or, I mean, a hiring decision --MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I think the department has public guidelines
that are online in terms of appointments. I would direct you there. In
terms of questions on screening for nepotism, which you raised, we
follow federal law.QUESTION: Or cronyism.QUESTION: And have you been – have you been reviewing those
guidelines in the wake of some of these email disclosures to make sure
they’re adequate?MS TRUDEAU: I’m aware of no review.Was that a question, Arshad?QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to make sure that your answer
covered not merely nepotism, which refers to family members, but also
cronyism, which refers to associates.MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we live up to our federal obligations.QUESTION: I looked up nepotism. It can be friends too --MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, Justin.QUESTION: -- in the broad sense of the definition.QUESTION: So in other words, in – also in this hiring
situation, you’re confident nothing was – that the department is – the
department --MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that we followed State Department guidelines and federal law.QUESTION: Okay.QUESTION: Have you looked into it on that one instance? You can’t say that you --MS TRUDEAU: I’m not aware of any review going on now.QUESTION: Okay. So you’re confident you lived up to the guidelines even though you haven’t reviewed it?MS TRUDEAU: I am not aware of any review, but I am confident
that we followed the guidelines and the State Department’s internal
procedures as well as lived up to federal law.QUESTION: So you’re confident that you followed the guidelines even though you’re not aware of any review?MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

We'll stop there.

State Dept spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau explaining to the world that
no investigation or review was conducted to determine whether guidelines
were followed, that none needs to be, because she just knows -- a bird
told her? -- that nothing untoward was done.